1
$\begingroup$

In this article Chen & Pearl make the following 2 statements:

  • "Identification techniques are available for models in which X is far from satisfying $E(u_i|X_i)=0$" in response to Stock & Watson's sentence: "In observational data, X is not randomly assigned in an experiment. Instead, the best that can be hoped for is that X is as if randomly assigned, in the precise sense that $E(u_i|X_i)$=0"

  • "There are many techniques that allow unbiased estimation of causal
    effects even when other factors are not held fixed
    " in response to Wooldridge's sentence: "If other factors are not held fixed, then we cannot know the causal effect of a price change on quantity demanded."

Can someone list the techniques they are referring to?

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Did you miss $\text{do}(\cdot)$ in the body? $\endgroup$ Jan 14 at 17:50
  • $\begingroup$ Good question, Richard. In the text, this is a quote of Chen & Pearl who are using the Economists' speak of $E(u_i|X_i)$ to really refer to $E(u_i|do(X_i))$ $\endgroup$ Jan 14 at 17:54
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Instrumental variables and difference-in-differences come to mind. Each requires a different assumption to identify the effect. $\endgroup$
    – Noah
    Jan 14 at 18:18
  • $\begingroup$ @ColorStatistics, I meant the discrepancy between the title and the body. Is it intentional? (I now see the quote in the body is accurate.) $\endgroup$ Jan 14 at 18:33
  • $\begingroup$ @RichardHardy: Yes, it is intentional. The title is the way Chen & Pearl would have written it (and the way perhaps it is time Econometrics books write it), while body has exact quotes from textbooks. $\endgroup$ Jan 15 at 8:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.